HS2 rail extension to Leeds set to be scrapped

[JonathanH]

NPR will be a new line from Manchester to Huddersfield

Not quite sure how that is 40 miles of new line. Are they counting each direction separately or is there a wild detour?

 

[david1212]

With both the cost of Covid and decline in full fare business travel this was inevitable. Further IMO HS2 London - Birmingham Interchange and whatever eventually is done towards Leeds and Sheffield will struggle even more to cover costs in a reasonable timescale if ever. Any speed gain against existing slower but more direct routes is offset by the detour to Birmingham. The concern about one less platform at Euston is now irrelevant.

When first considered HS2 was far more viable as internet speeds suitable for home working and video conferencing were sci-fi.
Regardless of the overnight change last March I believe long before any part of HS2 carries a fare paying passenger working from home and part-time commuting would have still declined to nominally the same level.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Not quite sure how that is 40 miles of new line. Are they counting each direction separately or is there a wild detour?

Manchester-Leeds is only 42 miles.
Maybe the 40 miles includes some mileage west of Manchester (towards Liverpool)?

Lets hope tonight's shenanigans in the Commons doesn't impact Thursday's rail announcement.

 

[ashkeba]

I'm disappointed that the government seems to have U turned on their leveling up policy.

 

[Jozhua]

I do find it odd they intend to “build a high-speed route” with no intention to connect it to the main HS2 route. No doubt it would likely be connected in the future (decades later at even more cost) anyway and no doubt different standards / contracts / processes. It’s more ridiculous short-termist, piecemeal approaches which was all meant to be avoided with HS2 plans.

Completely agree - the UK suffers with a paralysing level of short termism, as do many English speaking countries.

The IRP was supposed to address this, but I have a sinking feeling it won't...

That's good for Leeds and the East Coast but does nothing for the East Midlands.

I live in between Nottingham and Derby and our train services ate already poor compared to the East Coast main line

I think that there will be a new link to the East Midlands, the quality of it may be questionable though...

I agree, but this is what the "HS2 should start in the north" people wanted - this is the disjointed regional version that they claimed to prefer to building one unified network from the London end

It'll be fine politically, because Yorkshire get's its bit of line (wholly in Yorkshire) and the Midlands get their bit of line (wholly in the Midlands), so it should play well to all of the local politicians etc - it's just a kick in the teeth to anyone who wanted to travel outside of their region, or who'd hoped for a unified project capable of delivering national benefits

Be careful what you wish for!

(we just really need to spend a few quid tackling Sheffield Midland - taking two Doncaster stoppers out of the equation will be a marginal help but I fear we may have to terminate the Barnsley stoppers at Meadowhall (i.e. Huddersfield and Castleford losing direct trains to Sheffield, since these will be lowest in the pecking order once the Donny stoppers are replaced by TramTrains - at least Meadowhall would permit terminating trains to layover at the old Brightside loops)

Big case of be careful what you wish for!

Funny how "upgrade the existing network" turns out to just be a bit of a disaster in reality...

(Speculative warning)
Tbh, the only solution to Sheffield if you want city centre trains in my opinion is to bore right under it!
Dig a big pit out in front of the Midland station and have some underground HSR platforms. ~£3-5bn with about 5/10 miles of tunnelling on either end.

There's still an awful lot of the north that HS2, even in its entirety, would have done nothing to help. Places like Barrow, Workington, the entire NE coast other than Newcastle...

I mean, you can't expect one project to touch every crevice of the UK. Even then, it would improve journey times and costs when heading to different destinations in the UK.

Thanks. Any figures for a (say) 125mph new line v's the one we're getting?

I wish I could laugh at the fact that I was in my 40's when HS2 was announced, but I'll be almost 80 when (if) the western leg is completed. Northeners are definitely second class citizens when it comes to infrastructure spending.

Pretty much the same!

HS2 doesn't exactly have a good track record in assessing costs!

I think you'll find that's about as much to do with politics than HS2 themselves. Every time they delay for more "value engineering", they conclude that indeed, the existing plans are the most efficient and we should just do that. Of course the supply chain disruption from the delay bumps the costs up a good 5-10%.

 

[30mog]

With regards to the northern throat at Sheffield. I believe tram-trains might well turn out to be part of the answer. There are already suggestions the existing Supertram track may be re-routed from the east side of Sheffield station to the west enabling a new road to be built on east side. This re-route could be enhanced to carry on to Sheffield Victoria - reopening of which I’m told is necessary if Beeching Reversals for Don Valley and Barrow Hill lines come to anything. Tram-trains could turn left on a triangle to head up Don Valley to Stocksbridge or right for Barrow Hill line. Also after a right turn at SheffVic are opportunities for trams or tram-trains to rejoin mainline to Meadowhall and beyond via a new chord or to rejoin tram or rail network in vicinity of Supertram’s Nunnery depot. Thus, the already proposed rerouting of Supertram could take local train services converted to tram-train just a short distance from Sheffield’s existing platforms via a tram route which could also serve as a large passing loop by taking slower services out of the path of faster trains.

This is only my idea but I believe has merits.

 

[Pete_uk]

I never understood why HS2 headed to the east when a upgraded ECML would be shorter (roughly speaking)

 

[class26]

You didn't say it was on borrowed time, I know what I read, you wrote it calls at York, you didn't imply that it was based on the now withdrawn proposed timetable.

Love to know no where your 'apparently 30%' figure comes from, as it is far more than that that arrive on time.
Also The Flying Scotsman is one of the top 5 trains money wise for Lner, so let's see what the next proposed December 2022 timetable will me, I can foresee it staying.

Was in Modern Railways a couple of months ago

What he actually wrote before being challenged was:

"NO trains do it in 4 hours now and by all accounts it rarely made it in 4 hours so basically it wasn`t really achievable , the 05.40 now stops at York"

Ok, I wrote it badly but the case is the timetable intended for May 22 and deferred until 23 had NO trains omitting York not even the 05.40. The Edinburgh timetable was one an hour stopping at Newcastle and York only and another 30 mins later stopping at also at Peterborough, Newark, Darlington and either Berwick or Alnmouth but NONE did it in 4 hours flat. The best time mostly 4 hrs 10 mins with the stoppers closer to 4 hrs 25 mins

 

[Ianno87]

I never understood why HS2 headed to the east when a upgraded ECML would be shorter (roughly speaking)

Because Welwyn Viaduct is always going to be a capacity constraint (with 4 tracking it buying very little extra capacity).

 

[21C101]

does it?




well, yes, if you replace all the track, every set of points, almost everything under the track, all the OLE, and all the signalling, put in a lot more power, and keep existing linespeeds through any tunnels and stations with adjacent platforms. In short, basically building a new railway but with the added complication of doing it right on top of an existing one. And all to save about 6 minutes from London to York.

The vast majority of which are between Kings Cross and Stevenage, all of 27.5 miles from Kings Cross.

Beyond Stevenage for the remainder of the ~200 miles to york there is precisely one tunnel that would need work done on it and six stations without through roads in both directions, one of which most trains stop at anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Do people seriously think Leeds passengers are going to catch a train to Manchester to then travel into London?

Even if its quicker, I find it hard to belive that most will and feel like most people will just opt for the direct train.

It's the sort of thing I might do in certain circumstances. But only for a cheap price.

 

[The Planner]

The vast majority of which are between Kings Cross and Stevenage, all of 27.5 miles from Kings Cross.

Beyond Stevenage for the remainder of the ~200 miles to york there is precisely one tunnel that would need work done on it and six stations without through roads in both directions, one of which most trains stop at anyway.

Still doesnt stop the requirement for all the other stuff though. Good decade or more of work there on a live railway.

 

[wellhouse]

Not quite sure how that is 40 miles of new line. Are they counting each direction separately or is there a wild detour?

Perhaps there are to be improvements to both Piccadilly and Victoria?

 

[thejuggler]

Manchester-Leeds is only 42 miles.
Maybe the 40 miles includes some mileage west of Manchester (towards Liverpool)?

Lets hope tonight's shenanigans in the Commons doesn't impact Thursday's rail announcement.

Classic double speak. I'm sure it will be two sets of tracks, 20 miles each. 80 miles of new track sounds even more impressive! Trick missed there.

 

[21C101]

Still doesnt stop the requirement for all the other stuff though. Good decade or more of work there on a live railway.

Much of which will have to be done anyway over the next decade or three as renewals, as the infrastructure wears out and has to be replaced. Additional costs if the renewal has to be done anyway to allow future line speed increase from 125mph to 140/150 is in most cases tiny.

 

[The Planner]

Much of which will have to be done anyway over the next decade or three as renewals, as the infrastructure wears out and has to be replaced.

So it becomes a 30 year delivery plan? No one is going to renew infrastrcuture if it doesnt need it. It gets sweated as it is.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The vast majority of which are between Kings Cross and Stevenage, all of 27.5 miles from Kings Cross.

Beyond Stevenage for the remainder of the ~200 miles to york there is precisely one tunnel that would need work done on it

Which one - Stoke, Peascliff or Askham. And why do the other two not need work?

I would have thought the easiest way to fix the Welwyn bottleneck was to build a tunnel for the fast lines. Yes, it would have to dive under the Mimram Valley. The viaduct is 30metres high, so to pass under the valley floor would require a drop and rise of a bit more than that. Welwyn Garden City station and Woolmer Green (the end of the two-track section) are both about 3km from the middle of the valley, so gradients of about 1 in 100 (30/3000) would be needed - well within the capabilities of anything that uses the fast lines on the ECML. How much would a 6km double track tunnel cost?

 

[MontyP]

Because Welwyn Viaduct is always going to be a capacity constraint (with 4 tracking it buying very little extra capacity).

But if the viaduct is 4-tracked this would remove a key 2-track bottleneck on a 4-track railway, this would surely increase capacity (at least up as far as the next bottleneck). It would then be 4 tracks to well past Hitchin where the Cambridge line branches off.

 

[CdBrux]

It seems to me that the scope of the project has effectively been modified, although this is not really so far stated as the case, and thus the design has as well.
It used to be something like "relieve WCML, MML, ECML capacity and build faster link from Scotland, NW, NE, Yorkshire, East Midlands to London and Birmingham" - with some arguments about how well it did this, in particular for East Midlands. With a budget that has been more or less doubled to keep the same scope
Now it is "relieve WCML, MML, ECML capacity and build faster link from Scotland, NW, NE, Yorkshire, East Midlands to London and Birmingham and faster East to West link along M62 corridor, plus some better local connectivity" with a solution that looks better for East Midlands to Birmingham and London and maybe more sooner regarding possible local connectivity. With a budget higher still but maybe not high enough to keep all the previous priorities, i.e. a Leeds to London and Birmingham timing

So to those who complain it's not as advertised then it's, as I see it, trying to solve some different issues. The debate would be better off looking at if the issues trying to be solved are the right ones and how well it does in solving them rather than just saying, in effect "you agreed to something 10 years ago, things have changed but we still think you should do the same no matter what the cost"

 

[21C101]

But if the viaduct is 4-tracked this would remove a key 2-track bottleneck on a 4-track railway, this would surely increase capacity (at least up as far as the next bottleneck). It would then be 4 tracks to well past Hitchin where the Cambridge line branches off.

I think you would also need platforms on the "goods" lines at Hornsey and Haringey to make a usable six track railway between Alexandra Palace where the Hertford Loop goes off and south of Finsbury Park where the Hertford Loop goes off to Moorgate to make such capacity at Welwyn worthwhile

 

[CdBrux]

But if the viaduct is 4-tracked this would remove a key 2-track bottleneck on a 4-track railway, this would surely increase capacity (at least up as far as the next bottleneck). It would then be 4 tracks to well past Hitchin where the Cambridge line branches off.

My understanding from those here that seem to have a lot of detailed knowledge is that the next, several, bottlenecks mean it doesn't really increase capacity. IIRC quite a few trains terminate at Welwyn just before the viaduct, so there are fewer services over it than immediately south of it which may partly also explain why it's not so much of a bottleneck as all that

 

[Ianno87]

But if the viaduct is 4-tracked this would remove a key 2-track bottleneck on a 4-track railway, this would surely increase capacity (at least up as far as the next bottleneck). It would then be 4 tracks to well past Hitchin where the Cambridge line branches off.

Not by very much.

Remember, very little capacity actually gets lost by Welwyn because the timetable design minimises it - only the 2tph that weave from Slow lines onto the viaduct and back to the Slow Lines again could be "released". Everything else on the viaduct is Fast Line to/from at least Finsbury Park.

 

[quantinghome]

It seems to me that the scope of the project has effectively been modified, although this is not really so far stated as the case, and thus the design has as well.
It used to be something like "relieve WCML, MML, ECML capacity and build faster link from Scotland, NW, NE, Yorkshire, East Midlands to London and Birmingham" - with some arguments about how well it did this, in particular for East Midlands. With a budget that has been more or less doubled to keep the same scope
Now it is "relieve WCML, MML, ECML capacity and build faster link from Scotland, NW, NE, Yorkshire, East Midlands to London and Birmingham and faster East to West link along M62 corridor, plus some better local connectivity" with a solution that looks better for East Midlands to Birmingham and London and maybe more sooner regarding possible local connectivity. With a budget higher still but maybe not high enough to keep all the previous priorities, i.e. a Leeds to London and Birmingham timing

So to those who complain it's not as advertised then it's, as I see it, trying to solve some different issues. The debate would be better off looking at if the issues trying to be solved are the right ones and how well it does in solving them rather than just saying, in effect "you agreed to something 10 years ago, things have changed but we still think you should do the same no matter what the cost"

Problem is that scrapping the main part of the eastern leg and most of NPR doesn't do this. This is what it does:

Relieve WCML - Yes
Relieve MML - South of East Midlands, Yes. North of East Midlands, it makes it worse.
Relieve ECML - No
Build faster link from Scotland, NW - Yes
Build faster link from NE - No
Build faster link from Yorkshire - Only if there is a massive upgrade to the existing lines
Build faster link from East Midlands to London and Birmingham - Yes
Faster East to West link along M62 corridor - improved on today but massively compromised if it's not a new line and only an upgrade of existing
plus some better local connectivity - remains to be seen.

You don't 'modify' something by not building it. And by not building the critical section of the eastern leg (with only modest cost savings) it removes a huge amount of the benefit.

 

[Starmill]

Not by very much.

Remember, very little capacity actually gets lost by Welwyn because the timetable design minimises it - only the 2tph that weave from Slow lines onto the viaduct and back to the Slow Lines again could be "released". Everything else on the viaduct is Fast Line to/from at least Finsbury Park.

While this is of course the case, you can't single out the Digswell Viaduct site as a specific reason for building HS2 Eastern Leg, and then complain that theoretically quadrifying it wouldn't help

In truth there are a wide range of capacity factors on both the MML and ECML which make the Eastern Leg good value.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually, it does relieve the ECML a bit, in that the Edinburgh expresses could be withdrawn, as fast Edinburgh traffic will use HS2 (2tph at 200m, now I've checked). Stops inserted in the Edinburghs could therefore reduce the need for one or two other services, and that cascades down.

 

[quantinghome]

Actually, it does relieve the ECML a bit, in that the Edinburgh expresses could be withdrawn, as fast Edinburgh traffic will use HS2 (2tph at 200m, now I've checked). Stops inserted in the Edinburghs could therefore reduce the need for one or two other services, and that cascades down.

Well, you could relieve the borders section of the ECML, but you would only see relief over the rest of the ECML if services to Newcastle were reduced, which wouldn't happen.

 

[Watershed]

Problem is that scrapping the main part of the eastern leg and most of NPR doesn't do this. This is what it does:

Relieve WCML - Yes
Relieve MML - South of East Midlands, Yes. North of East Midlands, it makes it worse.
Relieve ECML - No
Build faster link from Scotland, NW - Yes
Build faster link from NE - No
Build faster link from Yorkshire - Only if there is a massive upgrade to the existing lines
Build faster link from East Midlands to London and Birmingham - Yes
Faster East to West link along M62 corridor - improved on today but massively compromised if it's not a new line and only an upgrade of existing
plus some better local connectivity - remains to be seen.

You don't 'modify' something by not building it. And by not building the critical section of the eastern leg (with only modest cost savings) it removes a huge amount of the benefit.

Indeed. It sounds awfully like we'll end up with a half-baked version of HS2 East, that costs two thirds as much and delivers something around a quarter or a third of the benefits.

Of course, with the Government's and Treasury's interminable short-termism this is hardly surprising. If the scheme does go ahead with only two thirds built, I would be amazed not to see the remaining third ultimately ending up being built - at considerably greater expense and disruption than building it all in one go, of course - after demand proves it necessary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, you could relieve the borders section of the ECML, but you would only see relief over the rest of the ECML if services to Newcastle were reduced, which wouldn't happen.

You could do something like extend the York stopper to Newcastle maintaining 2tph and bin the hourly Edinburgh fast. That would be a slight downgrade for Newcastle, but then HS2 will always have losers - Coventry and Stockport being the biggest ones.

I would expect something like that to happen whether the eastern leg is built or not, to be honest - HS2 will have two trains per hour to Edinburgh and that will become the premium Edinburgh service. Keeping a fast on the ECML to compete with it is a waste of capacity - the competition is found at Luton, Heathrow etc.

 

[MontyP]

Good point. I had always assumed that the capacity wasn't particularly constrained at the south end, only further north where the speed differential between 125mph intercity trains and 100mph Thameslink/GN EMUs kicked in. Where does 125mph running on the ECML fasts start?

 

[Watershed]

Good point. I had always assumed that the capacity wasn't particularly constrained at the south end, only further north where the speed differential between 125mph intercity trains and 100mph Thameslink/GN EMUs kicked in. Where does 125mph running on the ECML fasts start?

Half a mile south of Woolmer Green Junction.